A comparison of the International Index of Erectile Function and erectile dysfunction studies
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the ability of the five-item version of the International Index of Erectile Function (IIEF-5) to diagnose the vascular aetiology and severity of erectile dysfunction (ED), and to compare it with pharmacological testing and duplex Doppler ultrasonography, as such questionnaires are widely used by the pharmaceutical industry to categorize the severity of ED and to assess the efficacy of drug therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In all, 80 patients (mean age 45.2 years, sd 14.0; mean duration of ED 3.5 years) were reviewed by an examiner unaware of their IIEF scores during testing. Penile blood flow was assessed in each patient after an intracavernosal injection with prostaglandin-E1 (10 micro g), with self-stimulation in privacy. The peak systolic velocity, end diastolic velocity and resistive index were measured for the vascular diagnosis. Visual ratings of erectile responses were also used for analysis. RESULTS: Of the 80 patients, 30 had a normal vascular response, 38 arterial insufficiency and 12 were diagnosed with venous leakage. There was no significant difference in the IIEF scores among patients with a normal vascular response, arterial insufficiency or venous leakage. Analysis of visual ratings of erections showed no difference in IIEF scores among the different groups of patients. CONCLUSION: The IIEF was designed and developed specifically for assessing and evaluating sexual function in clinical trials. However, as shown here, the IIEF cannot and should not be used as a tool to diagnose or compare specific vascular causes of ED.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it